Discussion Forum > Working with yourself VS working against yourself
To "work with our minds" can mean to acknowledge that our brains have shortcomings and instead of stubbornly deny that fact, we take them into account when we take action.
In regard to your second question I am not a hundred percent sure what you mean. But as far as I can understand it: no. If you are unwilling to learn something, anything, on a general level, then nothing will ever change.
Time management is a skill which is to be learnt like any other skill. This takes some effort and some readiness to change.
If you never change your behaviour, it is madness to expect an improvement on the side of results.
In regard to your second question I am not a hundred percent sure what you mean. But as far as I can understand it: no. If you are unwilling to learn something, anything, on a general level, then nothing will ever change.
Time management is a skill which is to be learnt like any other skill. This takes some effort and some readiness to change.
If you never change your behaviour, it is madness to expect an improvement on the side of results.
December 20, 2014 at 5:17 |
Christopher
Christopher
Thanks Christopher for your reply.
My second question is about what I call "resistance to others' systems": whenever you try to implement a system, you find yourself (partially or wholly resisting it). This resistance may lead to implementation failure. A metaphor here would be organs transplantation: new organs are rejected by the body immune system because it considers them strangers.
So, could we consider the failure of productivity systems to produce satisfactory results as a natural consequence of this "resistance"?
Is the system we try to implement finally rejected because it didn't fit with our specific way of thinking, feeling, doing things..?
Should anybody first begin by discovering his natural and unique way of behaving, and then search or design the right system "to work with his mind, not against it"?
My second question is about what I call "resistance to others' systems": whenever you try to implement a system, you find yourself (partially or wholly resisting it). This resistance may lead to implementation failure. A metaphor here would be organs transplantation: new organs are rejected by the body immune system because it considers them strangers.
So, could we consider the failure of productivity systems to produce satisfactory results as a natural consequence of this "resistance"?
Is the system we try to implement finally rejected because it didn't fit with our specific way of thinking, feeling, doing things..?
Should anybody first begin by discovering his natural and unique way of behaving, and then search or design the right system "to work with his mind, not against it"?
December 20, 2014 at 9:40 |
Abderrafie
Abderrafie
Abderrafie, do you consider the possibility of continual change (of mind) in your questions?
e.g.
<<Should anybody first begin by discovering his natural and unique way of behaving>>
What is "natural way"? When I implement any system (or generally, when I learn anything), I change myself (including how I do tasks or anything)...and when I use the system (or generally the learning experience) for some time, I gradually change my "natural way". Since birth.
And often at the same time, I change also the "system" a little bit (or generally, the learning experience or the meaning I derive from it). I can do it consciously or not. So at the end the system (meaning or experience) suits me better, it works better with the specificity of my personality/context. Two-way change.
That is the difference between mind metaphor and your organ metaphor. Mind still changes, is flexible. System (experience, rules) also can be changed. But organ is either received or not.
What I understand by "working with oneself" is what Christopher says in his first sentence. For me, it means finding ways how to work optimally. I do not see it as either-or relationship (method must work for me 100% or I do not use it). For me, it is about quality which I feel when using particular method, it is about remembering context in which particular system (method, hint) helps me.
And I do not see the whole situation as two separated (unchanging) realities which should match: my internal natural self x external system. I view them both as one continuously changing whole. At the end, system (rules) becomes part of me and I change the rules/system.
e.g.
<<Should anybody first begin by discovering his natural and unique way of behaving>>
What is "natural way"? When I implement any system (or generally, when I learn anything), I change myself (including how I do tasks or anything)...and when I use the system (or generally the learning experience) for some time, I gradually change my "natural way". Since birth.
And often at the same time, I change also the "system" a little bit (or generally, the learning experience or the meaning I derive from it). I can do it consciously or not. So at the end the system (meaning or experience) suits me better, it works better with the specificity of my personality/context. Two-way change.
That is the difference between mind metaphor and your organ metaphor. Mind still changes, is flexible. System (experience, rules) also can be changed. But organ is either received or not.
What I understand by "working with oneself" is what Christopher says in his first sentence. For me, it means finding ways how to work optimally. I do not see it as either-or relationship (method must work for me 100% or I do not use it). For me, it is about quality which I feel when using particular method, it is about remembering context in which particular system (method, hint) helps me.
And I do not see the whole situation as two separated (unchanging) realities which should match: my internal natural self x external system. I view them both as one continuously changing whole. At the end, system (rules) becomes part of me and I change the rules/system.
December 20, 2014 at 12:01 |
Daneb
Daneb
Habits easily run our lives. Brains are good at that. So much of what we do is motivated by habits of the past or desires for a specific future that we become defined by our past or desired future. It's only by slowing down enough to notice our habitual reactions that the fog lifts and we see new options for relating to our circumstances.
December 20, 2014 at 13:06 |
michael
michael
A few examples of working "with your mind" as opposed to "against it"
Working little and often v. doing things in one huge session at the last minute
Working on what stands out v. forcing yourself to do something
Designing good routines v. relying on "will power"
Working little and often v. doing things in one huge session at the last minute
Working on what stands out v. forcing yourself to do something
Designing good routines v. relying on "will power"
December 20, 2014 at 14:24 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
OK, disclosure time. I eventually made CAF4 because of what I read here:
http://www.capt.org/research/article/JPT_Vol72_01_0612.pdf
This is a study on high-performing college students that have what's called the Perceiving function in MBTI personality theory. Perceivers, in MBTI parlance, are people who prefer a more flexible and adaptable lifestyle; this is in contrast to Judgers, who prefer a more structured and decided lifestyle.
Conventional wisdom holds that the "Judgers" would be more successful in life because they are organized and plan ahead, while the "Perceivers" would be less successful because their preference to "wait and see" and "leaving things as they are" leads to procrastination and chaos.
The paper studies then those that goes against this conventional wisdom: Perceivers who are successful, at least in college.
The results are eye opening. 12 of 17 have to use self-motivation strategies to start working; 7 of the 17 have difficulty starting. 16 of 19 start working at the last minute (procrastination), avoiding to start early. 11 of 18 do not like to stop working at the middle of a task. 17 of 18 dislike repetition and reviewing. And (I think this is the greatest eye-opener for me) all 19 do all the work for a task at one time.
"Working little and often", as Mark posted above, does not work for them, but "doing things in one huge session at the last minute" does.
Read what one of the interviewees said:
"I definitely know that, for me, the more stuff I
have going on the better I do. Like during soccer
season—when I’d have classes and I’d have a cou-
ple hours to get my homework done before I
knew I was going to pass out, I did better than
when I had nothing else going on. When I was
really busy I knew I had to finish it because I had
no other time to do it. The time crunch."
The paper theorizes that what is happening to Perceivers is that they sense time differently from others. Time for them is FLUID, with rises and ebbs, and not constant. Perceivers live in what the Greeks called "Kairos" time, which is the time of opportunity, the fleeting decisive moment, in contrast to "Chronos" where time flows constantly for the organized Judgers.
"Chronos keeps time with the even, predictable rhythm of a ticking clock. Kairos, on the other hand,
lives in the wave of Momentum. The wave swells, gathering strength, then crests into opportunity and decision. Kairos races toward an objective with speed that easily outstrips the measured tick-tick-tick of chronos."
And that "building of momentum" is the key to understanding how Perceivers work. Perceivers wait for the right opportunity for decisive action by letting work, resources, and pressure accumulate, then they work their best by slowing down time, "overclocking" their minds and body.
It is a recipe for procrastination; and yet, Perceivers procrastinate because they work and FEEL their best when procrastinating.
But if Perceivers are forced to work in a structured way, to slow down and follow instructions, to break down tasks so they can work "little and often". what would happen to the building momentum?
"Perhaps this is what happens when a person or system applies what are essentially Judging brakes. When a process is broken up or requires much repetition, energy dissipates. If chronos takes over, the freedom of the kairos right moment is lost. The task becomes work. It is no longer fun, engaging, or challenging, and may even become empty of purpose. If students need momentum to power through the actions required to reach their goals, what harm is done when we hold them back?"
The paper theorized six elements of Perceiving-Kairos:
1. "Momentum. A sense of intention and progress, activated and propelled by energy, which carries through to completion of a process of cognition or action. Its antithesis, going back, is avoided, resisted, and may even be perceived as impossible."
2. "Unconstrained Time. The perception that time is (a) available rather than passing; (b) fluid, not fixed; and (c) useable, not manageable. As the quantity of time decreases, the rate of thought and action increases."
3. "Entirety. A pattern of cognition and action in which processes are (a) whole, not broken or in parts; (b) complete, not missing something or lacking in some way; and (c) cohesive, not compartmentalized or divided."
4. "Continuity. A pattern of cognition and action in which processes have a flowing quality, and interruption of that flow is potentially destructive to both process and product."
5. "Awareness. A pattern of interest and attention, employed cognitively and in relation to objects, which influences recall, intention, and use of time."
6. "Augmentation. A pattern of cognition and action characterized by the propensity for addition or amplification of information, objects, and experiences."
After reading this paper, I wanted to make a system that satisfies all six elements but without inducing procrastination nor totally abandoning "little and often". In spite of the Perceiver's abhorence for it, "little and often" is a sound principle of working tasks.
Hence, CAF4. The original AF4 already satisfies Awareness, Augmentation, and Continuity. Awareness and Augmentation being the accumulation of tasks of many types into one list, Continuity being the sense of progress from the dismissal process. By adding "contexting" I wanted to add the rest of the elements: Entirety being that I can add more kinds of tasks now, including project tasks and daily and weekly goals, and thus eliminating different lists/systems for them, as well as grouping tasks into "contexts" (and thus adding to Continuity also); Unconstrained Time and Momentum by giving oneself more tasks to do at a time (and thus satisfying Augmentation, too), increasing rate of thought and action, while masking "little and often" by gathering the smaller tasks into contexts.
http://www.capt.org/research/article/JPT_Vol72_01_0612.pdf
This is a study on high-performing college students that have what's called the Perceiving function in MBTI personality theory. Perceivers, in MBTI parlance, are people who prefer a more flexible and adaptable lifestyle; this is in contrast to Judgers, who prefer a more structured and decided lifestyle.
Conventional wisdom holds that the "Judgers" would be more successful in life because they are organized and plan ahead, while the "Perceivers" would be less successful because their preference to "wait and see" and "leaving things as they are" leads to procrastination and chaos.
The paper studies then those that goes against this conventional wisdom: Perceivers who are successful, at least in college.
The results are eye opening. 12 of 17 have to use self-motivation strategies to start working; 7 of the 17 have difficulty starting. 16 of 19 start working at the last minute (procrastination), avoiding to start early. 11 of 18 do not like to stop working at the middle of a task. 17 of 18 dislike repetition and reviewing. And (I think this is the greatest eye-opener for me) all 19 do all the work for a task at one time.
"Working little and often", as Mark posted above, does not work for them, but "doing things in one huge session at the last minute" does.
Read what one of the interviewees said:
"I definitely know that, for me, the more stuff I
have going on the better I do. Like during soccer
season—when I’d have classes and I’d have a cou-
ple hours to get my homework done before I
knew I was going to pass out, I did better than
when I had nothing else going on. When I was
really busy I knew I had to finish it because I had
no other time to do it. The time crunch."
The paper theorizes that what is happening to Perceivers is that they sense time differently from others. Time for them is FLUID, with rises and ebbs, and not constant. Perceivers live in what the Greeks called "Kairos" time, which is the time of opportunity, the fleeting decisive moment, in contrast to "Chronos" where time flows constantly for the organized Judgers.
"Chronos keeps time with the even, predictable rhythm of a ticking clock. Kairos, on the other hand,
lives in the wave of Momentum. The wave swells, gathering strength, then crests into opportunity and decision. Kairos races toward an objective with speed that easily outstrips the measured tick-tick-tick of chronos."
And that "building of momentum" is the key to understanding how Perceivers work. Perceivers wait for the right opportunity for decisive action by letting work, resources, and pressure accumulate, then they work their best by slowing down time, "overclocking" their minds and body.
It is a recipe for procrastination; and yet, Perceivers procrastinate because they work and FEEL their best when procrastinating.
But if Perceivers are forced to work in a structured way, to slow down and follow instructions, to break down tasks so they can work "little and often". what would happen to the building momentum?
"Perhaps this is what happens when a person or system applies what are essentially Judging brakes. When a process is broken up or requires much repetition, energy dissipates. If chronos takes over, the freedom of the kairos right moment is lost. The task becomes work. It is no longer fun, engaging, or challenging, and may even become empty of purpose. If students need momentum to power through the actions required to reach their goals, what harm is done when we hold them back?"
The paper theorized six elements of Perceiving-Kairos:
1. "Momentum. A sense of intention and progress, activated and propelled by energy, which carries through to completion of a process of cognition or action. Its antithesis, going back, is avoided, resisted, and may even be perceived as impossible."
2. "Unconstrained Time. The perception that time is (a) available rather than passing; (b) fluid, not fixed; and (c) useable, not manageable. As the quantity of time decreases, the rate of thought and action increases."
3. "Entirety. A pattern of cognition and action in which processes are (a) whole, not broken or in parts; (b) complete, not missing something or lacking in some way; and (c) cohesive, not compartmentalized or divided."
4. "Continuity. A pattern of cognition and action in which processes have a flowing quality, and interruption of that flow is potentially destructive to both process and product."
5. "Awareness. A pattern of interest and attention, employed cognitively and in relation to objects, which influences recall, intention, and use of time."
6. "Augmentation. A pattern of cognition and action characterized by the propensity for addition or amplification of information, objects, and experiences."
After reading this paper, I wanted to make a system that satisfies all six elements but without inducing procrastination nor totally abandoning "little and often". In spite of the Perceiver's abhorence for it, "little and often" is a sound principle of working tasks.
Hence, CAF4. The original AF4 already satisfies Awareness, Augmentation, and Continuity. Awareness and Augmentation being the accumulation of tasks of many types into one list, Continuity being the sense of progress from the dismissal process. By adding "contexting" I wanted to add the rest of the elements: Entirety being that I can add more kinds of tasks now, including project tasks and daily and weekly goals, and thus eliminating different lists/systems for them, as well as grouping tasks into "contexts" (and thus adding to Continuity also); Unconstrained Time and Momentum by giving oneself more tasks to do at a time (and thus satisfying Augmentation, too), increasing rate of thought and action, while masking "little and often" by gathering the smaller tasks into contexts.
December 20, 2014 at 21:00 |
nuntym
nuntym
nuntym:
That's a lot of conclusions to be drawn from a piece of research based on 19 college students, pre-selected for academic success, with no control group. And that's without even going into the question of whether the Myers-Briggs tests actually validly indicate for the "Perceiver" characteristics mentioned in the paper.
So college students like doing anything but studying, tend to wing it, and leave everything to the last minute. Who'd a guessed?
That's a lot of conclusions to be drawn from a piece of research based on 19 college students, pre-selected for academic success, with no control group. And that's without even going into the question of whether the Myers-Briggs tests actually validly indicate for the "Perceiver" characteristics mentioned in the paper.
So college students like doing anything but studying, tend to wing it, and leave everything to the last minute. Who'd a guessed?
December 21, 2014 at 0:03 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
nuntym and Mark:
I'm reading the study and the following extract is one of the most articulated, accurate descriptions of my natural process (ENFP) when working without a system or method.
I believe they could have studied any Perceiver, young college student or no, and found little difference in their findings. The main differences would likely be down to the more mature Perceivers having accumulated systems, methods, and (at first) "unnatural-feeling" habits to augment, enhance, utilize, or offset their natural tendencies:
"For people with the adaptable and open Perceiving preference, on the other hand, it seems that time is continuous and resistant to interruption once a work process has begun. Thoughts and actions flow as the individuals become interested in objects and events, and experiences are connected and ongoing.
When Perceiving college students work on a paper or project, they may think about various aspects of the assignment for quite a while before demonstrating any observable work effort. At some place in time, the location of which is typically indescribable, everything comes together and the product is complete, often right at the deadline.
Rather than a burst of inspiration in which new ideas come into being, this is a burst of activity, coordination, and combination. It is as if pieces of a puzzle—previously collected, examined, and known—rapidly fall into place.1
Perceiving students say it can be very difficult to revisit work products for editing or rewriting, since mustering up interest on demand (deciding to start again) often seems impossible. A sense of wholeness and continuity shapes the flexible habits of academically successful
It is not surprising, therefore, that educational policy and practice have been shaped by priorities and methods favored by educators whose psychological type characteristics are associated with the Judging preference.
As a result, Perceiving students’ spontaneous and adaptable habits may be identified as irresponsible or immature (Lawrence, 1997). Perceiving students tend to be flexible and tolerant, like choices, seek more information, like to juggle several projects at once, and usually think there is plenty of time to complete work (Fairhurst & Fairhurst, 1995; Lawrence, 1997; Mamchur, 1996; Provost, 1999). They may seem “indifferent to the established, especially if imposed by others” (Keirsey & Bates, 1984, p. 106)."
I'm reading the study and the following extract is one of the most articulated, accurate descriptions of my natural process (ENFP) when working without a system or method.
I believe they could have studied any Perceiver, young college student or no, and found little difference in their findings. The main differences would likely be down to the more mature Perceivers having accumulated systems, methods, and (at first) "unnatural-feeling" habits to augment, enhance, utilize, or offset their natural tendencies:
"For people with the adaptable and open Perceiving preference, on the other hand, it seems that time is continuous and resistant to interruption once a work process has begun. Thoughts and actions flow as the individuals become interested in objects and events, and experiences are connected and ongoing.
When Perceiving college students work on a paper or project, they may think about various aspects of the assignment for quite a while before demonstrating any observable work effort. At some place in time, the location of which is typically indescribable, everything comes together and the product is complete, often right at the deadline.
Rather than a burst of inspiration in which new ideas come into being, this is a burst of activity, coordination, and combination. It is as if pieces of a puzzle—previously collected, examined, and known—rapidly fall into place.1
Perceiving students say it can be very difficult to revisit work products for editing or rewriting, since mustering up interest on demand (deciding to start again) often seems impossible. A sense of wholeness and continuity shapes the flexible habits of academically successful
It is not surprising, therefore, that educational policy and practice have been shaped by priorities and methods favored by educators whose psychological type characteristics are associated with the Judging preference.
As a result, Perceiving students’ spontaneous and adaptable habits may be identified as irresponsible or immature (Lawrence, 1997). Perceiving students tend to be flexible and tolerant, like choices, seek more information, like to juggle several projects at once, and usually think there is plenty of time to complete work (Fairhurst & Fairhurst, 1995; Lawrence, 1997; Mamchur, 1996; Provost, 1999). They may seem “indifferent to the established, especially if imposed by others” (Keirsey & Bates, 1984, p. 106)."
December 21, 2014 at 0:51 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
@ Abderrafie:
I do not know "resistance to other's systems." Years ago I started out with my own "system" I only then discovered how hairy a subject time management is. The good systems by professional time management system inventors have a lot of research and experience distilled into them. I rather profit from that by learning a system from such an inventor who I respect, than to re-invent the wheel.
Sure, it is fun to experiment with different systems but in the end I want to focus on my actual work, which in my case is NOT being a time management teacher.
A similar case would be the apps on my computer: yes, I do program things, but that doesn't mean I use only programs that I did myself. Most software I use is done by others and it serves me quite well. Even though I like to try out new ones here and there and sometimes switch to a better one and the perfect app is never there. Because we are humans, we are not perfect and in the end what matters is what I did produce with those apps.
Years ago when I first read Francis Wade's assertion that we need to invent our own because our situations are different I was pretty nonplussed by it. Back then it read as something somebody would say who has given up on getting GTD to work. Specially because the other half of his writing was just a re-hash of GTD's basic workflow stages.
I think Daneb explained very well how we are in a constant evolution of learning and changing systems. There are three components to it, if you will: your personality (which will evolve and improve over the years, hopefully (I am not saying you are a bad person :-)), your work (which will change for the better, hopefully) and your time management system. Which should change to accommodate to the other change in your life.
The question who invented the given app or time management system you use is IMHO completely besides the point.
Do you feel resistance to walk to the fridge just because your slippers where made by some other individual than you?
I do not know "resistance to other's systems." Years ago I started out with my own "system" I only then discovered how hairy a subject time management is. The good systems by professional time management system inventors have a lot of research and experience distilled into them. I rather profit from that by learning a system from such an inventor who I respect, than to re-invent the wheel.
Sure, it is fun to experiment with different systems but in the end I want to focus on my actual work, which in my case is NOT being a time management teacher.
A similar case would be the apps on my computer: yes, I do program things, but that doesn't mean I use only programs that I did myself. Most software I use is done by others and it serves me quite well. Even though I like to try out new ones here and there and sometimes switch to a better one and the perfect app is never there. Because we are humans, we are not perfect and in the end what matters is what I did produce with those apps.
Years ago when I first read Francis Wade's assertion that we need to invent our own because our situations are different I was pretty nonplussed by it. Back then it read as something somebody would say who has given up on getting GTD to work. Specially because the other half of his writing was just a re-hash of GTD's basic workflow stages.
I think Daneb explained very well how we are in a constant evolution of learning and changing systems. There are three components to it, if you will: your personality (which will evolve and improve over the years, hopefully (I am not saying you are a bad person :-)), your work (which will change for the better, hopefully) and your time management system. Which should change to accommodate to the other change in your life.
The question who invented the given app or time management system you use is IMHO completely besides the point.
Do you feel resistance to walk to the fridge just because your slippers where made by some other individual than you?
December 21, 2014 at 5:32 |
Christopher
Christopher
Michael B.
<< I believe they could have studied any Perceiver, young college student or no, and found little difference in their findings.>>
I've always been astonished at the uncritical way in which Myers-Briggs seems to be accepted by everyone. First of all, I do not believe any population can be divided neatly into two psychological characteristics. According to the paper nuntym quotes, 55% of college students "self-identify" as Judging and 45% as Perceiving. That probably means that the great majority, like myself, exhibit characteristics of both. From reading the paper I would put myself into the category Judging/Perceiving.
What's more, in some situations I act more in accordance with one set of characteristics and in others more in accordance with the other set. That leads me to believe that these Myers-Briggs characteristics are not fixed personality traits, but actually vary all the time in any one person. Many people for instance behave quite differently at home from how they behave at work.
There may well be deep-seated differences in personality between people, but I doubt if a test as simplistic as Myers-Briggs is capable of identifying them. For the great majority of people environment and habit are probably much stronger indicators of how they will behave.
http://skepdic.com/myersb.html
<< I believe they could have studied any Perceiver, young college student or no, and found little difference in their findings.>>
I've always been astonished at the uncritical way in which Myers-Briggs seems to be accepted by everyone. First of all, I do not believe any population can be divided neatly into two psychological characteristics. According to the paper nuntym quotes, 55% of college students "self-identify" as Judging and 45% as Perceiving. That probably means that the great majority, like myself, exhibit characteristics of both. From reading the paper I would put myself into the category Judging/Perceiving.
What's more, in some situations I act more in accordance with one set of characteristics and in others more in accordance with the other set. That leads me to believe that these Myers-Briggs characteristics are not fixed personality traits, but actually vary all the time in any one person. Many people for instance behave quite differently at home from how they behave at work.
There may well be deep-seated differences in personality between people, but I doubt if a test as simplistic as Myers-Briggs is capable of identifying them. For the great majority of people environment and habit are probably much stronger indicators of how they will behave.
http://skepdic.com/myersb.html
December 21, 2014 at 9:55 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
"I do not believe any population can be divided neatly into two psychological characteristics."
As I understand it, the Myers Briggs instrument identifies what you tend to prefer of each of the two choices and the degree to which you prefer them. Some MBTI testing results show a left to right bar chart, the 8 preferences, and how much you tend towards each. If you were 50/50 between two preferences, that would show as an X, as in ENTX, if you were 70% "Perceiving" and 30% Judging, you would test as ENTP.
"According to the paper nuntym quotes, 55% of college students "self-identify" as Judging and 45% as Perceiving. That probably means that the great majority, like myself, exhibit characteristics of both."
I believe the Myers Briggs theory agrees with you. Everyone exhibits characteristics of all the elements. It's the degree to which you tend towards one of any two that it's concerned with.
"From reading the paper I would put myself into the category Judging/Perceiving."
And the test may show exactly that. If you were exactly 50/50 on all the elements you'd be completely balanced, and completely X-rated! (XXXX)
"I do not believe any population can be divided neatly into two psychological characteristics."
As I understand it, the Myers Briggs instrument identifies what you tend to prefer of each of the two choices and the degree to which you prefer them. Some MBTI testing results show a left to right bar chart, the 8 preferences, and how much you tend towards each. If you were 50/50 between two preferences, that would show as an X, as in ENTX, if you were 70% "Perceiving" and 30% Judging, you would test as ENTP.
"According to the paper nuntym quotes, 55% of college students "self-identify" as Judging and 45% as Perceiving. That probably means that the great majority, like myself, exhibit characteristics of both."
I believe the Myers Briggs theory agrees with you. Everyone exhibits characteristics of all the elements. It's the degree to which you tend towards one of any two that it's concerned with.
"From reading the paper I would put myself into the category Judging/Perceiving."
And the test may show exactly that. If you were exactly 50/50 on all the elements you'd be completely balanced, and completely X-rated! (XXXX)
December 21, 2014 at 10:58 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
as for MBTI discussion -
I am psychologist with quite a scientific background and I must confirm what Mark says. MBTI was never established (validized) as scientific personality theory and there are many conceptual and statistical objections towards using it - e.g. in HR (recruitment), where it is (mis)used very often. Its popularity is understandable because we all love typologies (and we almost all love Jung .-)
As any typology, it can be of course interesting for your self-knowledge, for thinking about yourself and your characteristics, but let`s not consider it a valid scientific personality theory which proves some more-or-less stable personality factors/traits. Here is popular article about the issue ( http://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5881947/myers-briggs-personality-test-meaningless ).
Also, you can consult google scholar for many serious scientific (psychometric) critique, e.g.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/232494957_Cautionary_comments_regarding_the_Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator
or
http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=hss_pubs
I am psychologist with quite a scientific background and I must confirm what Mark says. MBTI was never established (validized) as scientific personality theory and there are many conceptual and statistical objections towards using it - e.g. in HR (recruitment), where it is (mis)used very often. Its popularity is understandable because we all love typologies (and we almost all love Jung .-)
As any typology, it can be of course interesting for your self-knowledge, for thinking about yourself and your characteristics, but let`s not consider it a valid scientific personality theory which proves some more-or-less stable personality factors/traits. Here is popular article about the issue ( http://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5881947/myers-briggs-personality-test-meaningless ).
Also, you can consult google scholar for many serious scientific (psychometric) critique, e.g.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/232494957_Cautionary_comments_regarding_the_Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator
or
http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=hss_pubs
December 21, 2014 at 12:20 |
Daneb
Daneb
To Daneb:
I like your description of the interaction between the system and the mind: the mind changing by the system and the system changing by the mind. May be that's the condition of making the resistance less and the system work : adapting the system to your specific needs, way of behaving...by changing its rules...which means finally: making the system yours.
To Mark:
The examples you gave of "working with your mind" suppose there are general natural laws of mind's work. I find this theory very interesting, but needs further developments. This reminds me of the book "Brain Rules".
@Christopher: Yes, to reinvent the wheel might be a tedious and awkward process; but let me just say that the resistance to others' systems is not due to rational causes.
There is a notable difference between "resist using the slippers cos made by someone else" and "resist using a system for the same reason": Slippers is a neutral tool; but TM system has an interaction with a specific mind, with his own history, habits, behaviour,...
I like your description of the interaction between the system and the mind: the mind changing by the system and the system changing by the mind. May be that's the condition of making the resistance less and the system work : adapting the system to your specific needs, way of behaving...by changing its rules...which means finally: making the system yours.
To Mark:
The examples you gave of "working with your mind" suppose there are general natural laws of mind's work. I find this theory very interesting, but needs further developments. This reminds me of the book "Brain Rules".
@Christopher: Yes, to reinvent the wheel might be a tedious and awkward process; but let me just say that the resistance to others' systems is not due to rational causes.
There is a notable difference between "resist using the slippers cos made by someone else" and "resist using a system for the same reason": Slippers is a neutral tool; but TM system has an interaction with a specific mind, with his own history, habits, behaviour,...
December 22, 2014 at 9:47 |
Abderrafie
Abderrafie
Abderrafie:
<< The examples you gave of "working with your mind" suppose there are general natural laws of mind's work. I find this theory very interesting, but needs further developments. This reminds me of the book "Brain Rules". >>
I think that "general natural laws" is putting it a bit too strongly. What I try to do is find methods that make it easier for people to do their work without resistance or excessive use of will power. This methods will work better for some people than others. So I think you are right in saying that "a TM system has an interaction with a specific mind, with his own history, habits, behaviour,..."
My basic theory is that I am a fairly typical person, and that people who are like me may find useful for themselves what I have found useful for myself. But I realize that there are plenty of people who are not like me at all, and they probably won't find my stuff useful.
<< The examples you gave of "working with your mind" suppose there are general natural laws of mind's work. I find this theory very interesting, but needs further developments. This reminds me of the book "Brain Rules". >>
I think that "general natural laws" is putting it a bit too strongly. What I try to do is find methods that make it easier for people to do their work without resistance or excessive use of will power. This methods will work better for some people than others. So I think you are right in saying that "a TM system has an interaction with a specific mind, with his own history, habits, behaviour,..."
My basic theory is that I am a fairly typical person, and that people who are like me may find useful for themselves what I have found useful for myself. But I realize that there are plenty of people who are not like me at all, and they probably won't find my stuff useful.
December 22, 2014 at 20:41 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
So, what does it mean to work with our minds?
Is the failure to implement a system due to this: the system you're trying to implement will finally work against you ( your natural way of thinking, doing things, reacting to events...)?